Dec. 4, 2009

New York state Sen. Eric Schneiderman, D-Bronx, right,consoles Sen. Thomas Duane, D-Manhattan, following the defeat of same-sex marriage legislation in the New York state Senate on Wednesday at the Capitol in Albany.

Written by

Herb Pinder

Not a whole lot of profiles in courage get written in Albany, where financial and political considerations are king and we the people are very often afterthoughts, mere patrons instead of the principals. But I was struck by some of the very personal stories from lawmakers in advance of Wednesday's "No" vote on same-sex marriage. Sen. Jeff Klein, D-Westchester/Bronx, brought some relevant history to the fore. Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson, D-Mount Vernon, and Sen. Liz Krueger, D-Manhattan, spoke movingly of family members who had been touched by discrimination. Death had rendered the scores of their loved ones beyond settling; nonetheless, the lawmakers eyed the vote with those personal histories front and center.

Because the Assembly had twice before voted to legalize gay marriage, all eyes were on the Senate, which under the many years of Republican rule never entertained such a vote — notwithstanding the vast interest in the region stretching from New Jersey to Maine. Of course, when decision day finally came, the measure failed, 24-38, with eight Democrats joining all 30 Republicans in opposing the bill. It was a big win for inequality, unfairness and the continued denial of human dignity to other New Yorkers. In other words, not so fast with this "good will to all" stuff.

Gov. David Paterson, who supported the change, said Thursday that he would not reintroduce the bill until it was clear there was sufficient support. That's reasonable, but proponents should by no means retreat. Public opinion may be swinging in their direction — a new poll last week had New Yorkers supporting gay marriage 51 percent to 42 percent — but their burden remains great, with the law and human history arrayed against them.

Some moving messages

There are video links on YouTube of some of the classier acts from Wednesday's action. They are worthy of your inspection. One is of Hassell-Thompson, who talked about her eldest brother, a gay man who many years ago fled to Europe rather than face their father's disapproval. "My father worried, but could not ask him to come home," the senator said. Explaining her affirmative vote, Hassell-Thompson acknowledged that many in her majority black district had opposed the bill. Indeed, black majorities routinely oppose gay marriage in opinion polls, notwithstanding blacks' painful history of racial bias, lawful and unlawful discrimination, and legislative efforts to deny them human dignity. The senator, however, said that she wasn't elected to be the "moral arbiter" of personal decisions; she said that her job was to provide leadership, including for those denied rights. "People have the right to choose," she said. "This bill is not about encouraging people, enticing people, but rather giving them the right to make the choice for themselves. And if there is a condemnation in that choice, which is something that my church preaches, that is between them and God."

(Page 2 of 2)

Then there was Sen. Krueger. Her voice breaking, Krueger talked about her grandparents, who escaped pogroms and discrimination against Jews. With that history in mind, Krueger said, "And so for me I think it's easy, because I'm a woman and I'm a Jew. So I know about discrimination." She added: "I don't understand how anyone can vote 'No.'"

Recalling earlier time

I was struck by something that Sen. Klein read — a statement by Mildred Loving that was written for the 40th anniversary of Loving vs. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967 that struck down laws banning interracial marriage. Loving was the black plaintiff in the Virginia case; her white husband, Richard, was killed by a drunk driver in 1975. Excerpts from her writing:

"My generation was bitterly divided over something that should have been so clear and right. The majority believed that what the judge (who had upheld the state's anti-miscegenation statute) said, that it was God's plan to keep people apart, and that government should discriminate against people in love. But I have lived long enough now to see big changes. The older generation's fears and prejudices have given way, and today's young people realize that if someone loves someone they have a right to marry.

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the 'wrong kind of person' for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights.

"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."

The Senate on Wednesday had a chance to stand on the right side of history. The majority chose poorly.